In this video, Alex Jones interviews Badass Uncle Sam about the Trans Day of Vengeance and violence
in the trans community. They discuss reactions on the streets of New Orleans, engaging with liberals
and asking them to explain how allowing men to compete in women's sports helps women. They also talk
about the dangers faced by those who challenge the trans cult and the need for prayer and support
during these times. The video starts with a speaker discussing the importance of taking vitamin D
and iodine before getting sick, mentioning Banned.Video, thanking contributors for supporting their
products, and praising Alex Jones as a martyr to the First Amendment. Jones discusses nuclear
weapons, emphasizing that when the president gives an order, it must be followed, before promoting
his presidential campaign. The speaker then experiences technical difficulties before returning with
Scott Ritter, discussing the U.S.'s war with Russia and how Ukraine is a proxy for NATO with the
ultimate aim of destabilizing Russia. The speaker discusses Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD),
highlighting the importance of understanding the strength of Russia and the need for peaceful
coexistence between nations, mentioning potential risks such as Biden administration's lack of
respect for Russia and a possible nuclear conflict. They also criticize Zelensky for acting crazy
and being manipulated by the CIA, emphasizing the importance of stopping hating Russians and
avoiding pushing them into an alliance with China. Alex Jones and his guest Scott Ritter discuss
Russia, particularly about the number of World War II memorials across the country and how this
shows that they are culturally ready for major death but do not want it. They also express
frustration at the neocons and globalists who pose a threat to Russia with their policies despite
there being no actual threat from Russia itself. The conversation touches on NATO's future, with
Jones mentioning that as long as NATO is part of an American policy seeking the strategic defeat of
Russia, it remains a problem. They also discuss how important it is for citizens to get involved in
politics and make disarmament a top priority. In this speech, Alex Jones discusses the frustration
of being awake for decades and how InfoWars has been exposed to corporate worldwide tyranny. He
thanks his crew and listeners for their support but emphasizes that InfoWars cannot stay on air
without it. He highlights the importance of purchasing products from InfoWarsStore.com to ensure
funding while discussing various conspiracy theories and news events, including the USS Liberty
attack, the Great Reset, and the threat of nuclear war. The speaker discusses the importance of
preventing nuclear
They're promised to engage in a bunch of violence.
They've got high-level FBI people now warning they think copycat attacks are about to happen.
unidentified
Well, as you know, I'm in the gay capital of the South here in New Baltimore.
And I'm going to be putting up a video tomorrow that pretty much amplifies the reaction I get on the street here, because I'm on the bullhorn.
I'm trying to invite liberals over to talk, and one of the things I say over the bullhorn is, could you please explain to me how helping women By having men compete with women in women's sports, how does that help women out?
So, I'm telling you nothing, and this includes people that are not even in RLTGB or whatever they want to call them, just liberals.
They just go off the rails.
When I bring that question up, it's like, can you fill in?
All right, brother, well, we appreciate you and glad you got better.
God bless you.
The biggest thing is we load up on vitamin D and iodine and stuff before you get sick.
But wow, thank you so much, sir.
I'll find badass Uncle Sam on Bandai Video.
Remember, all those hundreds of band contributors are only at Bandai Video because you buy the products and support us.
Thank you.
All right, talk about a guy who's been talking about the deep state and a smart guy.
I'm very excited to have Scott Ritter.
He's been on before many, many years ago via like Skype, but I don't think ever in person.
So Scott Ritter's coming in right now.
We'll continue after that with your phone calls.
Paul, please stay with us.
That is a hellish future.
Now you'll always, while they still allow books, I guess they're starting to ban them, be able to get an unsigned copy of The Great Reset and the War for the World at bookstores, Amazon, or Infowarsware.com.
But you will never be able to get another signed copy of the book after the signed copies we got run out.
And there's about a thousand left of them right now.
So get your copy of The Great Reset and The War for the World, a signed copy, at Infowarsware.com.
And there is a markup there because this is a fundraiser to keep us on the air.
So you won't just have this historic memento and this powerful book, you'll also know that you help keep Infowars on the air.
I'm gonna thank those of you that have gotten signed copies of the book, or unsigned copies.
But I want to encourage all of you who haven't yet to go to Infowarshore.com and get a signed
copy and buy a couple of unsigned copies and donate them to the library or give them to
the local school.
This is an InfoWar, I'm counting on you, and thank you for your support.
He's a former Marine intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control agreements on the staff of General Norma Schwarzkopf during the Gulf War.
He played a crucial role in the hunt for Iraq's Scud missiles from 91 to 98.
Mr. Ritter served as a chief inspector of the United Nations in Iraq, leading the search
for Iraq's so-called weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Ritter was a vocal critic of the American decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003.
His new book, Disarmament, the Time of Perestroika, Arms Control, and the End of the Soviet Union
is his ninth.
Real Scott Ritter on Twitter, scottritterextra.com.
We couldn't have a more important, informative, truthful, honorable person with us in studio.
So sir, you're going to have to have the floor here and just tell people about what's happening in Ukraine, what's happening in Russia, what's happening in the rest of the world and your view on how we can try to stop what I think is already the beginning of World War III leading to nuclear confrontation.
But what's important to understand is, like the war in Iraq, this is a war of choice that we're waging against Russia right now.
And ladies and gentlemen, I don't mean to be too blunt here.
We're at war with Russia.
It hasn't turned into a straight-up nuclear showdown yet.
But we have made it.
We, the United States, have made it our objective to achieve the strategic defeat of Russia.
That's the official policy of the United States.
And if you're Russia and you hear a nuclear power like the United States, who's aligned with an anti-Russian military organization, NATO, saying that their mission is the strategic defeat of Russia, That means you can't trust the United States.
You have to assume that everything the United States is doing is geared towards your destruction, and it's incumbent upon you to respond accordingly.
People out there right now are saying that Russia launched an unprovoked act of aggression against Ukraine on February 24th of 2022.
That's the furthest thing from the truth.
To accept that, you have to ignore the fact that in 2008, the former U.S.
Russian ambassador, current CIA director William Burns, wrote a memorandum called "Net means
net, no means no," establishing what he said were the red lines Russia set about bringing
Ukraine into NATO.
That if we tried to bring Ukraine into NATO, it would provoke a Russian military response.
So we knew later that year when we invited Ukraine into NATO that we were doing it knowing
Russia would react militarily.
Then in 2014 we conduct a coup against the constitutionally elected government of Viktor
Yanukovych in Ukraine, replace him with the most odious regime possible.
Neo-Nazis, supporters of Adolf Hitler, have come back to life today in Central Europe, in Ukraine.
We put them in power.
There was a war, a conflict.
Russia was ready to defeat them militarily in the fall of 2014.
Then France and Germany intervened.
Something called the Minsk Accords, a ceasefire agreement took place, and for eight years, Russia sought a peaceful outcome.
They sought to get all the parties to implement the Minsk Accords.
We now know that neither Ukraine, France, or Germany took this seriously.
They all admit it was a sham, designed to buy time, so NATO could train a Ukrainian army to go to war against Russia.
Russia believed in peace, tried to achieve peace.
In December of 2021, they put two draft peace treaties on the table.
We ignored it.
When they intervened in February, it's because they had no other choice.
The Ukrainian military was shelling civilian areas in the Donbas, killing hundreds of children, thousands of civilians.
But even after Russia's intervention, they sought a peaceful outcome.
Rather than trying to capture the city and overthrow the government, they wanted negotiations.
And they actually had a negotiated peace settlement ready to sign on 1 April when the United States, Great Britain intervened and brought an end to that.
That's the war we're in today.
It's a war that Russia's fighting to save the civilian population, the ethnic Russian civilian population of Eastern Ukraine.
It's a war being waged by Ukraine as a proxy of NATO and the United States to undermine, destroy, and otherwise destabilize Russia.
The consequences of this are that we have a level of nuclear escalation that's unprecedented in history.
There is no more arms control right now.
The last remaining arms control treaty has been suspended because Russia says we can't do business with a nation that wants to inspect our most sensitive facilities at the same time they say we want to defeat you strategically.
So Russia says we can't talk to you until you change your strategic outcome.
You have to be willing to talk to us as equals and deal with us.
This treaty expires.
in February of 2026. And when that treaty expires, there will be no more arms control at a time when
there's the greatest level of tension between Russia and the United States. Both sides will be
in a new arms race. Ladies and gentlemen, one mistake, one miscalculation, one, you know,
Arab judgment, it's all over.
And in nuclear war, there's no such thing as a limited nuclear war.
You can't win a nuclear war.
By all over, I mean, you're all dead.
And that's our future if we don't find a way to get disarmament back on the table.
That's why the 2024 elections are probably one of the most important elections in the history of the United States.
Because, literally, the future of the United States and the world is on the line.
We elect the wrong person, we don't get arms control, we all die.
You cut your teeth on that and worked on that in decades, and accurately said there were no WMDs in Iraq as chief UN inspector, but we're going to go to break.
But this is a layperson.
I can study the Iran Corporation documents, the Pentagon threat escalation doctrines, and we're moving right up that threat scale towards nuclear war.
And every, like you said, every analyst says once it gets to a point, it goes all the way.
And even if it stayed to a limited, the different numbers I've seen is reactors melt down, society breaks down, stock markets crash, because the Pentagon's like, oh, we can have a limited war.
Well, even a limited war will destroy the economy.
Well, let's talk about Russian doctrine, because they've got their nuclear forces doing big drills.
Putin keeps warning nuclear war is imminent.
Scott Ritter is our guest in studio.
Couldn't have a better guest at this time.
Stay with us.
unidentified
With all the uncertainty in the world today, especially surrounding the pandemic, it's important to make sure that you protect yourself as well as others around you.
That's why we recommend legally obtaining and carrying a firearm.
As you can see, bullets travel hundreds if not thousands of feet per second.
And are able to neutralize mass assailants while maintaining proper social distancing protocols.
Safe gun owners routinely wash their hands and face after time spent on the range to prevent exposure to lead as well as transmitting it to other surfaces.
Signs that someone you know may be a legal gun owner include, but are not limited to, positive empowerment, peace of mind, and a general sense of respect for
themselves and others around them.
Know your rights and practice responsible gun ownership.
Well, you talk about one of the original whistleblowers about WMDs and...
The kind of proto-example of WikiLeaks, Scott Ritter, former chief UN weapons inspector, one of the top weapons inspectors over there, in Iraq, and saying it was all a lie and being massively persecuted.
And you're getting into where we currently are with Russia and their posture.
I'm not going to play the clip, I've played it like 30 times.
But Biden, eight months ago, said, you can't ship Abrams tanks in.
That escalates things, and that goes to World War III.
But now they are.
So what changed?
I played a clip from during the campaign back in 2016, where Hillary said, we will basically go after Russia.
We will go after Iran.
And the Joint Chiefs of Staff were like, that leads to World War III.
We can't do it.
Now something's changed.
All the old doctrine, where the Pentagon knew they couldn't do this, has been thrown to the wayside in just the last eight, nine months very recklessly.
Where do you see this going, and what should the viewers and listeners know?
Well, how we stop it parts the heart, and we'll deal with that at the end.
Look, what's changed?
What's changed is that The United States, the Biden administration, like Hillary Clinton, has no respect for Russia.
None whatsoever.
And if you don't respect somebody, then you're ignorant of their realities.
And the reality is, not only is Russia a peer-level military opponent, meaning that they're as good as we are, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not being... Look, I'm a former Marine.
And I'm the kind of guy that says you can't beat me in any kind of fight.
Okay?
If I went to war against Russia, I'm convinced my Marines would win.
But it would be a hell of a price.
A hell of a fight.
Because they're that good.
But it doesn't matter.
No nuclear-armed power, like the United States or Russia, can lose a stand-up fight against a peer-level opponent, because that's existential.
Back in the 1960s, we had people like Mr. Wolfstetter and others who believed that we could fight and win a nuclear war.
Fortunately, smarter people, Richard Nixon, one of them, came out and said, no, we can't.
That's why mutually assured destruction came into being, where we both agreed there's no reason to fight a nuclear war because if we do, we all die.
But now we have a new generation of people who think, no, wait a minute, because Russia's weak, We can bully them, we can threaten them with nuclear conflict, and they'll back down.
I'm here to tell you right now, Russia's not weak.
Russia has a nuclear arsenal that's second to none, and they have a doctrine that says that they are attacked.
This is why I don't believe in limited nuclear war, because it doesn't matter what we believe.
We use one nuclear weapon against Russia, they'll launch everything at us instantly, and there's nothing we have that can shoot them down.
We will all die, and these are the most important... And Putin has said that's the set default.
Yeah, that's it.
One nuclear weapon used against us, but here's the other default.
And this is why the policy of the Biden administration is so insane.
Just like us, imagine if Russia put 500,000 troops in Mexico and said they're going to come in and they're going to encourage civil unrest in Texas and then they're going to move in and take Texas.
Would we view this as existential in nature, as a threat?
The answer is yes.
Will we use everything in our arsenal to prevent this from happening?
The answer is yes.
So now we go to Ukraine, and we're starting to threaten to take Crimea, the Donbass.
We're going to physically do this.
This is an assault on Russia, just like a force coming out of Mexico.
I say that we are, you know, they say, what, 90 seconds now is what they put it at.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're a half second away.
We're a millisecond away.
Why do I say that?
Because it takes one mistake.
That's it.
And we make mistakes every single day.
We're all human.
In 1995, the Norwegians fired an atmospheric test rocket that the Russians misinterpreted as being a Trident missile being fired at them.
It was such a serious event that they put the nuclear football in front of Boris Yeltsin and said, you have to fire the arsenal right now, we're under attack.
It was a mistake.
Had he pushed the button, none of us would be here.
I say, when you meet me, shake my hand and buy me a beer.
Because if it weren't for me and other weapons inspectors who implemented the INF Treaty that I write about in my book, you'd all be dead.
And the reason why I say you'd all be dead is because if those weapons existed in 1995, when that atmospheric test rocket was fired, Boris Yeltsin wouldn't have had 20 minutes to consider.
He would have had 7 minutes.
And then at 7 minute time, he would have pushed the button and we'd all be dead.
But because we got rid of those weapons, we affected disarmament, he had enough time to receive the
phone call that said, "Oops, mistake."
He didn't push the button, we're alive.
Today, we're talking about getting an environment with the Russians where there's going to be
a mistake made, but because there is no arms control, there's going to be no time, the
The CIA works for a president who's bat-crap crazy.
And that's the problem.
This is why I say the 2024 election is probably the most important election in our history, because this is the election that if it goes the wrong way, we may not... Well, let's be clear.
Ladies and gentlemen, this book, The Great Reset and the War for the World, is a historic book that documents the globalists, in their own words, plan for our future.
That is a hellish future.
Now you'll always, while they still allow books, I guess they're starting to ban them, be able to get an unsigned copy of The Great Reset and the War for the World at bookstores, Amazon, or Infowarsware.com.
But you will never be able to get another signed copy of the book after the signed copies we got run out.
And there's about a thousand left of them right now.
So get your copy of The Great Reset and The War for the World, a signed copy, at Infowarsware.com.
And there is a markup there because this is a fundraiser to keep us on the air.
So you won't just have this historic memento and this powerful book, you'll also know that you help keep Infowars on the air.
I want to thank those of you that have gotten signed copies of the book.
or unsigned copies.
But I want to encourage all of you who haven't yet to go to Infowarshore.com and get a signed copy
and buy a couple of unsigned copies and donate them to the library
or give them to the local school.
This is an InfoWar.
I'm counting on you and thank you for your support.
unidentified
If Alex Jones runs for president in the Republican Party, he has a chance of winning.
So there's a real Palpable nausea to this for me and a surrealness to it that I'm not a former arms inspector And you know guy that did peace treaties with the Russians or any of that, but I've studied history It's so interesting and to see all the doctors we had before that kept us from destroying ourselves being thrown aside By a bunch of inept people that can barely talk It has a real
Bone-chilling effect of being on the eve of destruction here.
So Scott Ritter of ScottRitterExtra.com, former head UN inspector in Iraq.
The next 30 minutes I'm going to try to really shut up and give you the floor, because you did a great presentation earlier about where we're at, what's going on, and hopefully ways to stop this.
Look, the biggest problem we face today is of course nuclear weapons.
And so if we don't find a way to put disarmament first and foremost on the agenda, I'm not saying that in America there's not a lot of problems.
We know there are.
But what I'm saying is none of those problems matter if none of us are alive.
And the one thing that's going to kill us all is nuclear weapons.
And a nuclear war is all but inevitable if we continue on the current policy track.
That policy track is one that operates in total disregard for Russia and in total disregard for the reality of nuclear weapons.
We treat nuclear weapons as if they're some sort of toy, some sort of gimmick.
We actually have a nuclear warhead, the W76-2, the low-yield nuclear warhead that we put on a Trident missile on an Ohio-class submarine.
It is a usable nuclear weapon.
That term alone should send alarm signals to anybody, because there's no such thing as a usable nuke.
We have actually practiced in war games firing this nuclear weapon against the Russian target in a NATO-type scenario, which is exactly, of course, what's going on in Ukraine right now.
So we have a weapon deployed, designed to be used in the very scenario that we're speaking of, because we believe that we can escalate to de-escalate.
We can fire a nuclear weapon and get the Russians to back down.
Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, again, what you think about him, I don't care.
But I will tell you this, when he speaks, listen.
Because what he says, he means.
He doesn't bluff.
He says one nuclear weapon used against Russia, all the world will die.
He said yes, the Russians will go to heaven as martyrs, but you'll be dead.
And that's all that matters.
Russia's not going to allow anybody to use nuclear weapons against them.
Therefore, when we have a nuclear posture that creates the potential for the use of nuclear weapons, all Americans should be alarmed.
Now people will tell you that Russia's a threat.
That's an assessment that people should make.
We should determine, is Russia a threat or not a threat?
But it has to be done realistically, like anything.
You can't solve a problem unless you accurately define the problem first.
Because if you haven't defined the problem, the solution you're trying to put in place solves nothing.
And right now, we have Russian policies that are focused on Russia that we've defined as an enemy, a threat.
And the American people accept that as face value.
And again, I'll just say it straight up.
You know, you were told everything about Iraq, about weapons of mass destruction, about Saddam Hussein wanting to ruin the world, etc.
And we believed it because our government told us that.
It all turned out to be a lie.
So, why don't we understand that when the government today talks about Russia being a threat, it's all a lie?
But we are afraid of Russia.
And where does that fear come from?
Ignorance.
We're ignorant about the reality of Russia.
And that's because we have a systemic program of Russophobia, where we teach everybody to be afraid of Russia.
How many times have you heard, Putin did it, Putin did it, Putin did it, Putin did it?
We are literally on, but I'm also an optimist because like you, I have two daughters.
I have twin daughters, and I want them to have children, and I want to be able to play with my grandchildren.
And I'd like to believe that they want to be grandparents at some point in their life.
That isn't going to happen if the world doesn't exist.
So we've got to stop being complacent.
We have to stop waiting for somebody else to do something.
Ladies and gentlemen, the onus is on you.
The burden is on you.
You have got to make the decision that you want to live.
Therefore, you have to become engaged and insist Whoever is in power in 2024 has to make arms control the number one policy objective of the United States, because if we don't bring nuclear weapons under control, my children are... And without even making it partisan, I've got big problems with Trump, but he seems better one in the war.
Donald Trump had the vision. All right, stay there. Let's talk about Trump when we come back.
Final segment with Scott Ritter. He'll be at the Liberty Tree Tavern in Elgin tonight.
Do you think the beard is intimidating?
the name of perestroika on his website scottrederxtra.com couldn't be a more important topic folks i know
the average american doesn't have a passport thinks of russia as like the mars
unidentified
no folks their missiles are seven minutes away i don't know guys, do you think the beard is intimidating?
do you think it's too much?
it looks pretty good but i don't know it's just a beard
[BLANK_AUDIO]
It's just not that intimidating, dude.
Hmm.
Just a beard, huh?
What about... I gotta go to the bathroom.
Dude, that's intimidating, man.
That's frickin' awesome.
You're on in five.
Get your hair and beard formula at infowarsstore.com.
Sexy!
and intimidate one thing i should say on and i know this is called the
world government summit
uh... i think we should be taking a little bit concerned about actually
becoming too much of a single world government Um, and--
If I may say that we want to avoid creating a civilizational risk by having, frankly this may sound a little odd, too much cooperation between governments.
You know, if you look at, say, history and the rise and fall of civilizations, really all throughout history civilizations have risen and fallen, but it hasn't meant the doom of humanity as a whole because there have been all these separate civilizations that were separated by great distances.
While Rome was falling, you know, Islam was rising, and that actually ended up being a source of preservation of knowledge, and many scientific advancements.
And so, I think we want to be a little bit cautious about being too much of a world, of a single civilization, because if we are too much of a single civilization, then the whole thing may collapse.
I'm obviously not suggesting war or anything like that, but I think we want to Well, we live to see it.
area of actually popular too much. It sounds a little odd, but we just want to have some
amount of civilizational diversity such that if something does go wrong with some part
of civilization that the whole thing doesn't collapse and humanity keeps moving forward.
Their submarines are off our coast, just a few minutes with nukes, and they've been very restrained so far, but now their rhetoric is extremely threatening because NATO is on their border and moving weapons into the area.
This is insanity.
I wanted to play the short, clever Planet of the Apes, which is a hypothetical fictional by Rod Serling, a great American World War II veteran and patriot, about the astronauts come back through a time warp and think they're on an alien planet.
It's really Earth.
And Charlton Heston learns at the end that he's back in New York City and that everything was destroyed by a nuclear war.
Look, if you can't do business with Russia, you can't do business with anybody.
They've got a lot of stuff and they want to do business with us, but we're the ones who shut it all down because Look, we have a military-industrial complex that needs a sense of conflict around the world to justify an $800 billion defense budget.
Russia's been picked as the enemy, even though they don't want to be the enemy.
You know, in Texas, we're in Texas right now.
There's a great Texan named Van Cliburn.
Study your history.
He plays the piano.
Played the piano.
In 1959, Van Cliburn went to the Soviet Union to enter the Tchaikovsky Musical Festival.
And he played before a record crowd.
He won.
He played Beethoven, and he came in first place.
They gave him the first place prize.
In the history of the United States and New York City, Avenue of the Heroes.
We put astronauts, we put politicians, we put war heroes.
Only one musician has ever been given The ticker tape parade.
That was Van Cliburn.
Why?
Because he had the courage to go to the Soviet Union and break down the walls of ignorance and learn to interact with them as people.
You say, what can we do?
We all have to become our own Van Cliburn.
We all have to be able to go on a journey where we break through the walls of ignorance, the walls of fear, to reach out and touch these people.
One of the things I write about in my book is my experience.
Alex, I'm not lying when I tell you, I joined the Marine Corps to kill Russians.
I joined in the 1980s, the Cold War, my job was to kill Russians and I trained hard to do just that.
But then I got involved in implementation of this treaty, and I got to go over there and work for two and a half years, and I met them.
Their mothers, their fathers, their sisters, their brothers, their uncles, their aunts, their grandparents.
They laugh, they cry, they weep, they chuckle, they chortle, they do everything we do because they are us.
They speak a different language, they have different cultural, you know, Peculiarities.
We like barbecue.
They like shashlik.
But it's the same thing.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you took the chance, the opportunity to go out and meet them, you wouldn't fear them.
June 1982, there was a million-person march gathering in Central Park, New York City,
that broke the freeze on arms control.
Five years later, we got the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty.
One of my visions is that in June of 2024, we put a million Americans in the street again
to send a signal to every presidential candidate that nuclear disarmament is our number one
And I hope we could do it.
And I tell you what, if we make it happen, I encourage everybody here to go out in the streets, whether it's in Austin, Dallas, Houston, come to New York City, go somewhere, get in the street and send a signal.
And people say, well, demonstrations don't work.
They worked in 1982.
A million people told Ronald Reagan, the ultimate cold warrior, that they believed in arms control.
And five years later, a man who called the Soviet Union the evil empire, did his own Van Cliburn.
I'm telling you right now, Alex, my only question is... Well, it's like they're using TikTok with the Chinese to then set up something a hundred times worse.
Have you seen this bill?
Total surveillance, total censorship, total control, ten times worse than ChaiComs, in the name of stopping TikTok.
We, the people of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union, have to get off our butts and get out there and start taking action.
We're aware of your activities, trying to muzzle the American people and gaming your search results.
Google is evil!
unidentified
We now take the challenge, not to censor like you do, but to stand against you and to fight even harder for our birthright that you are trying to steal!
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm really excited to have undoubtedly the top legal scholar in the country joining us
in the next segment Alan Dershowitz another great legal eagle
Robert Barnes is riding shotgun with me today.
In fact, he was going to be hosting today.
I have my own court stuff I have to deal with, but I'm going to push it up to the time I've got to be in court in like an hour to talk to Alan Dershowitz about this historic event that's just unfolded.
So Alan Dershowitz is coming up here with us live in five minutes when a couple hundred radio stations join us after this break.
But Robert Barnes, Give us a prelude of some of what you're going to be talking about after Dershowitz goes, but also just in general of why this is so historic, what we've just witnessed.
Well, I think as Professor Dershowitz has identified, this is all unchartered, unparalleled, unprecedented territory.
This is an attempt to make something... It goes even worse than that.
It's not only the just open, overt, Berea-style political weaponization of our legal criminal justice process.
It also, it does things like define something as a crime that's not a crime.
It ignores statute of limitations that are meant to protect innocent individuals from wayward politically motivated prosecutors in part.
It's violation of due process and it's the most selective prosecution maybe at least in the modern history that I can remember.
There have been many selective prosecutions but this is probably the most abusive and egregious one.
You have a district attorney being elected, campaigning in part on promising to indict
a particular person for an unidentified crime.
I mean, this is just unheard of in American history of the indictment actually occurring.
You've had some people try to misuse their power in this way, abuse their privilege in
this way, but very few have actually gone ahead and done it.
And yet this one has.
And then, and now we're going to see, how does the justice system handle the bail process?
Do they abuse it too?
The Eighth Amendment exists for a reason.
Says no unreasonable bail.
Supposed to be limited to conditions of release that guarantee appearance at trial.
Not supposed to be used to publicly shame or humiliate people.
not supposed to be used to politically embarrass one's political opponents, not supposed to
be used to restrict or restrain the freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom
of press, or right to petition one's own government.
And yet we may see examples and illustrations of that here as well.
So all of this is exposing the frailties of our criminal justice process that have mostly
only been exposed in lower profile cases against political dissidents further outside the system.
This is like the Chicago 7 trial on steroids.
It's January 6th on steroids.
It's taking a case that basically should not exist from a criminal proceedings, both because of who it is that's being targeted, who it is that's targeting him, but also because of the substantive nature of the claims being made, the charges being leveled, and the limitations that are supposed to be present that are not being present.
So this goes right to the core of a constitutional democracy.
I mean, people around the world are comparing us to a banana republic.
Our global credibility has taken a substantial hit that will never fully come back.
You know, we mock other countries when they try to lock up their political opponents.
There was a kind of a fake documentary made, but a documentary made on behalf of that won
an Oscar for Navalny, who's a very marginal political figure in Russia.
But it won the best Oscar because he had been locked, just because he'd been locked up,
even though I think he got no more than like 1% of the vote ever.
Here you have, what signal does it send that we're locking up the former president and leading presidential opponent of the existing incumbent?
Based on completely nonsensical charges that have no basis in fact, no basis in law, no basis in due process, no basis in constitutional restraint on the criminal justice process.
Alan Dersh was really excited about this interview.
On Twitter, Alan Dersh, and of course he's got the new best-selling book.
Get Trump the threat to civil liberties due process our constitutional rule of law number one New York Times best-selling author from Skyhorse Can't wait to get the book I've got one being sent to me by Skyhorse that published my book The Great Reset in the War of the World that went to number one for two months number one of the New York Times But they would not listen is number one, but number one on all the other systems This is going to go to number one get Trump by Alan Dershowitz perfect timing with this book.
I gotta tell you coming up We're back in 60 seconds joining hundreds of radio stations Everybody, tell your friends and family to tune in.
You're going to hear from arguably, or not arguably, the top lawyer in the United States on what's really happening.
unidentified
Alan Dershowitz. Stay with us.
Needs to support InfoWars and Banned.Video.
You know, the Bible says, let another mouth praise you.
I'm gonna do that right now.
Alex Jones has helped so many people in this industry.
You guys have no idea how many people have got their first start like Savannah Hernandez.
How many people have just been put on a launch pad to outer space because of Alex Jones, including myself.
I've been given so many opportunities because of this man and because of this platform.
And I would probably not even be half of where I am right now if it weren't for Alex Jones.
I mean, I've been able to be on podcasts with Alex and Joe Rogan and TimCast, the super TimCast IRL.
Listen, what I'm saying is, do not take Alex Jones and Bandot video for granted because you don't know what you have until it's gone.
We need to support free speech systems right now.
So go check out the store, go support their store, go support InfoWars.
I knew that these district attorneys and attorney generals campaigned on the pledge to get Trump.
These are Democratic district attorneys and attorneys general.
And now they are prosecuting.
Forget about the fact that he's the first former president to be prosecuted.
He's the first presidential candidate to be prosecuted.
And he's running against The head Democrat in the world, obviously, President Joe Biden.
And when a popularly elected Democratic DA who swore to get Trump is going after the man running against, essentially, his boss, the Chief Democrat, he better have a slam-dunk, ironclad case.
And I have to tell you, I haven't seen the indictment yet, but based on what I've seen, this may be the weakest case I've seen in my 60 years of practicing So this is a great danger to American democracy and the rule of law, and I hope that Americans and people all over the world will read my book at Trump as a way of saying to Bragg, we're holding you accountable.
You may not be held accountable in New York, where everybody votes against Trump, but we're going to hold you accountable around the country, in front of bar associations, and in front of the Court of Public Opinion, because what you've done Endangers the rule of law.
You know, today, it's a Republican Trump.
Tomorrow, it could be a Democrat.
Day after tomorrow, it's your Uncle Charlie and your niece.
And this involves all Americans.
I'm a liberal Democrat.
I voted against Trump twice.
I have no idea who I'll vote for this next time.
But it has nothing to do with politics.
It has everything to do with the fact that the Constitution requires a presumption of innocence.
It doesn't allow targeting of people.
And it, you know, Nancy Pelosi announced today that, no, Trump has to prove himself innocent.
No, no, no, not in America.
In America, an indictment doesn't mean anything.
It's just a piece of paper charging somebody with a president with something.
But and I think every American has to be very concerned about what happened yesterday.
And as we know, there was a thought, perhaps, to go after a former president named Richard Nixon, and President Ford did the right thing.
And he said, no, we don't do that in America.
And he endangered his own presidential re-election by pardoning Trump, which was the right thing to do.
I had dinner with President Ford some years after that, and he said that was the most important and principled thing he did during his presidency, preventing a Precedent being established that you go after former presidents criminally, even though there was very strong evidence that he had obstructed justice and paid bribes.
Here, there's nothing.
Here, there's nothing.
Here, there's a non-disclosure agreement.
Thousands of them are written every year.
Nobody in history has ever then put on his corporate form, oh, the reason I paid $130,000 was to make sure my wife and family doesn't learn about the fact that I was accused of having an adulterous affair with a porn star.
Why would anybody ever pay for a non-disclosure agreement and then disclose it?
So never in history has anybody been indicted for that kind of Mickey Mouse crime, and then they stitch it together with a federal felony to try to make it a felony.
That's not the way criminal justice should operate.
You know, Thomas Jefferson once said that for a criminal statute to be constitutional, it has to be so clear that a person who is reading it while running, while running, I could understand it clearly.
Now, I'm going to read this indictment while sitting with 60 years of experience and I can bet you that I will not understand how they could make a state felony out of a fake misdemeanor and a fake federal felony that nobody else previously wanted to prosecute.
Mr. Jarvis, what's taking off your prestigious legal hat and putting on just an American citizen, you know, a historian hat?
Why is the corrupt deep state bureaucracy doing a crazy Hail Mary like this?
I mean, it'd be something if they had something to go after a former president, it'd still be unprecedented and explosive, but to do something with basically an unloaded gun, to threaten the world with banana republic status and not even have the goods, what do you think, just as an American, with your gravitas, why they're this desperate or why they're doing this?
Well, first of all, I don't think you can say they.
This was a decision made by one person, obviously, the elected district attorney, and he knows he can win this case in New York.
Do you remember what happened to me on Martha's Vineyard?
I defended President Trump in front of the United States Senate on constitutional grounds, and I lost all my friends on the vineyard.
My wife lost her friends.
My children lost their friends.
Everybody turned against us because I had exercised my and his constitutional right to defend themselves.
If you just multiply that tenfold, that's what would happen to a judge in New York or a juror in New York who acquitted, who applied justice, actual justice to Donald Trump.
He would never, ever again be part of New York life.
That's why the first thing that his lawyers have to do, Trump's lawyers have to do, is move the case out of New York.
Move to Staten Island, which is just across the river, but the voting demographics are very different.
Move it to upstate New York.
He cannot get a fair trial in New York City, and that's why Bragg went after him.
Greg doesn't want to lose this case.
He doesn't care if it's reversed on appeal.
He'll blame it on the judges.
But he doesn't want to lose it in front of a jury, and he probably won't lose it in front of a jury.
As they say in New York, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich, but in New York, when the name of the ham sandwich is Donald Trump, a petty jury will convict him as well.
And even though he has very good lawyers, I think the likelihood that lawyers can persuade New York jurors to allow Donald Trump to walk away free and run for president and be re-elected It's very unlikely.
Step number two is to apply the statute of limitations.
This all happened seven years ago.
And, you know, they say, well, we couldn't have indicted him over the last seven years.
A, we didn't know where he was.
He was in the White House.
And number two, you can't indict him if he's not in New York.
Well, when do you think they indicted him?
They indicted him when he was in Florida.
So the fact that they indicted him when he was outside of New York means they could have indicted him any day during the seven previous years and they didn't do it.
And I think they blew the statute of limitations.
Now, they will argue that, no, because he was out of New York, the statute provides that the statute of limitations tolls.
But it's a nonsense argument in light of the fact that they did indict him while he was outside of New York, something they could have done for years.
The reason they didn't indict him over the last seven years, previous prosecutors looked at the case and said, there's nothing to it.
We're not going to indict him.
Those who are Legitimate neutral prosecutors and then you get a partisan political guy and he says no no no the first two years I said I didn't think there was a case in fact two of his assistants quit over that but I don't know did he get calls from George Soros from other contributors I don't know the answer to that but he obviously had pressure put on him.
He seems like an honorable and decent man and a good lawyer and he had a good reputation.
But, you know, when you're caught up in the political winds and you're in New York City where nobody has anything good to say about Donald Trump, I don't mean nobody, but people, voters.
Don't.
If you wear a MAGA hat in New York City, you know, you're going to get hit by a bike or you're going to get, you know, attacked and physically attacked.
I was getting to your point earlier of, they can try this in New York, the court of public opinion's against them.
I was asking in general, I understand the pressure in New York, why they're not thinking outside of just Manhattan that you brought up when you first came on.
I mean, the fact that this is going to make Trump explode in popularity, then I guess we're just guessing at why they would do something so reckless.
Alan Dershowitz, our guest.
Riding shotgun is Robert Barnes.
I'm Alex Jones.
Everybody you know, tune in now.
This is historic.
This is important.
unidentified
For example, on InfoWars, one of the main things that he spoke, one of his most famous statements was saying that, Tapwater is turning the frogs gay and will turn you gay too.
First off, gay people are awesome.
I don't think that's a problem at all.
And secondly, if you noticed at the end of that video, he advertises water filters.
Since the mid-1940s, mainline scientists said you should not put what they call fluoride in the water.
It gives you dental fluorosis, it gives you bone cancer, it attacks fertility, it lowers IQs, it is highly toxic, and it is an adjuvant in that it is an acid that helps bring toxins through the blood-brain barrier.
It supercharges death.
Think about the level of premeditated evil.
To get up there in all the TV programs and all the stuff you've seen, not just attacking me, but everybody else, saying, no, it's conspiracy terrorist.
Even back to Dr. Strangelove in 1964.
The water's safe, you should drink it.
No, it's not.
It's not safe anywhere, even in farming areas with wells.
It's full of glyphosate, it's full of Roundup, it's full of crap.
And that's what's killing us.
Report leaking fluoride to lower IQ in children.
It made public after CDC, HHS tried to block it.
The good news is they're not blocking it.
A top HHS official blocked release of long-delayed fluoride toxicity review.
Internal emails reviewed for over a year and a half.
Health officials delayed reporting fluoride to brain harm.
This is Mother Jones.
This is...
Yahoo Finance suppressed government report finding fluoride can reduce children's IQ made public under EPA lawsuit.
They know one of the biggest causes of cancer and low IQ and infertility is the so-called fluoride that is weaponized, concentrated, electrified, acid-based molecule.
That if you take pure fluoride and you stick your hand in it for two seconds, when you pull your hand out, all the skin is going to slide right off it to the muscle.
Hydrofluorosilic acid is the third most deadly acid on earth.
The most powerful.
And they've got our children drinking that.
This is a psychotic death cult.
Period.
Case closed.
Out to get you and your family.
MSDS is a document that details the hazardous components of a product, its characteristics, effects on human health, as well as its handling precautions.
And they're suppressing what the fluoride does to you and your family.
You can see The ratings on it right there, the highest level danger ratings listed on it for toxicity and poison.
Now, we want to protect our children as much as we can.
These people are bombarding our children with these weapons.
So yes, we shall The Alexa Pure Breeze, made by the MyPatriotSupply Ready Hour Group, that's been around about 15 years, became the biggest company in the last six.
They went out, hired engineers, reverse engineered the fancy best water filter system out there that sells for twice the price, and they made it as good In all the studies, it reduces things to non-detectable levels, thousands of chemicals.
But you can go paint two or three times, there's four or five other filters out there that are just as good.
We sell, and it's not a plug here, it is, but it's really about reality, the very best, highest grade water filtration system for half the price of the leading competitor.
And the media says we're bad and a cult for telling you you should filter your water.
You should also filter your shower water.
That's another way you absorb this crap.
But I'm done talking about that.
The point is, you get the filters at Infowarstore.com.
They're discounted right now.
Finally back in stock.
All the supply chain breakdowns, they've been sold out for six months.
unidentified
Leading a frontal assault on the lies of the New World Order. It's Alex Jones
All right, welcome back to y'all show live Friday edition We have the top lawyer in the country, hands down, Alan Dershowitz with the new book, Get Trump.
And Robert Barnes is riding shotgun with us, another successful, well-known lawyer, who's going to have some of his own questions as well.
So you heard my point earlier, but I don't want to belabor that.
All I'm getting at is we're seeing a massive backlash, and we know the feds, going to your point, did not indict Trump on these same, as you say, non- I guess I'm trying to just read minds here, but I just don't see how such an obviously explosive decision was made for the first time in U.S.
history.
And I think we can probably chalk it up just to the bubble that he's in in New York City.
But how do you see this as a citizen unfolding?
And I'd like you to get into all the other facets you'd like to, Mr. Darzowicz.
Well, I don't think it's necessarily just the bubble.
I think he wants to be re-elected.
He made a promise.
He promised he would get Trump.
And if he doesn't get Trump, he loses his re-election.
He has gotten contributions.
We know, reportedly, he got a half a million dollars from George Soros.
And whether he got a call from Soros or just anticipated that Soros might cut back On his contributions, if he doesn't do it, this can't be based on objective legal standards.
Nobody else would ever be indicted for these kinds of absurd non-crime.
So, plainly, he succumbed to pressure.
He was pressured by his two former assistant district attorneys, one of whom wrote a book, saying that they ought to go after Trump.
But he resisted that pressure initially, and then he succumbed to it.
I don't know whether he got pressured from other people as well, but this is not a righteous, objective, neutral application of the law and the facts.
This is something very different.
Keep an open mind until you see the indictment.
Remember, the indictment hasn't been leaked.
The fact of the indictment has been leaked, and by the way, The District Attorney Bragg should be investigating who leaked it.
It's in his building.
It's under his nose.
It's in his watch.
And is he investigating who made the leak?
A leak in New York by grand jurors or by members of Bragg's staff constitutes a class E felony subject to a year to five years in prison.
So I think it's important to know whether Bragg is in fact investigating this leak.
Can you describe for people, I know the courts have sadly not meaningfully enforced it in my view, but that there is a limit on prosecutorial discretion in the Constitution, colloquially known as selective prosecution, under the First Amendment, enforceable through the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.
Do you think President Trump has a grounds to bring a motion to dismiss for selective prosecution and can you explain to folks out there what that is and what that entails and that our Constitution does in fact have limits on this kind of excess of prosecutorial discretion?
Oh, there's no question that there are constitutional limits.
Selective prosecution is a hard case to make.
This one is so obvious that any court should see through it.
Nobody has ever been prosecuted or will ever be prosecuted in the future for doing anything like this.
If the indictment is what we think it is, we're not absolutely positive.
So we have to wait and see.
There are also other limitations, ethical limitations.
For example, A prosecutor can't put a witness on the stand who he knows or reasonably suspects may be lying.
And Michael Cohen?
My God!
Is there... If the word liar appears in the dictionary, Michael Cohen is...
I mean, he's the man who has lied to his lawyers, lied to the federal authorities, lied to state authorities, and I'll tell you a recent interesting vignette involving me.
So his lawyers have now said, oh yeah, he was a liar in the past, he lied to everybody, but suddenly God has come down to him, lightning has struck, and he's suddenly turned into a complete truth teller.
Well, two days ago, he did a tweet about me, which constituted a defamatory lie.
He suggested that I was on Jeffrey Epstein's island with underage girls.
Obviously that never happened.
The one person who accused me is now recanted and basically said she may have mistaken me for somebody else.
Nobody has ever accused me.
Even she never accused me of being on Epstein's Isle.
Give us another one. Yeah, in the same capacity, you mentioned that there are limitations on a
Even though the U.S.
Supreme Court, in my view, has watered those down, but one of them that still exists is a prosecutor cannot knowingly suborn perjury or things like that.
Do you think there's the possibility that perjured testimony may have occurred in front of this grand jury, including by Cohen?
I do think so, and I think it was also suppression of evidence.
Remember that Costello was not called as a witness.
Costello, who was Cohen's lawyer, he was not called as a witness.
Obviously, Bragg wanted to keep him from the jury.
But he volunteered and he first essentially burst into the grand jury room and said, you're going to have to listen to me.
And then he testified that the hundreds of emails that he had sent to the D.A.
to show to the grand jury were never shown to the grand jury.
So I think there'll be a motion as well for suppression.
Of exculpatory evidence in front of the grand jury, and we'll see whether or not there's also suppression of evidence under the Brady principle that should have been turned over and should be turned over to the defense.
This is only the beginning of what will be, as you say, a very monumental case.
When I think of the cases in American history, and I've written a book about that, America on Trial, going through all the great cases in American history, this comes close to the trial of Aaron Burr.
The former Vice President of the United States who was put on trial by Jefferson for treason and defended himself, mostly himself he defended.
The biggest problem we face today is of course nuclear weapons.
And so if we don't find a way to put disarmament first and foremost on the agenda, I'm not saying that in America there's not a lot of problems.
We know there are.
But what I'm saying is none of those problems matter if none of us are alive.
And the one thing that's going to kill us all is nuclear weapons.
And a nuclear war is all but inevitable if we continue on the current policy track.
That policy track is one that operates in total disregard for Russia and in total disregard for the reality of nuclear weapons.
We treat nuclear weapons as if they're some sort of toy, some sort of gimmick.
And ladies and gentlemen, I don't mean to be too blunt here, we're at war with Russia.
It hasn't turned into a straight up nuclear showdown yet.
But we have made it, we the United States, have made it our objective to achieve the strategic defeat of Russia.
That's the official policy of the United States.
And if you're Russia, and you hear a nuclear power like the United States, who's aligned with an anti-Russian military organization, NATO, saying that their mission is the strategic defeat of Russia, That means you can't trust the United States.
You have to assume that everything the United States is doing is geared towards your destruction, and it's incumbent upon you to respond accordingly.
The United States, the Biden administration, like Hillary Clinton, has no respect for Russia.
None whatsoever.
And if you don't respect somebody, then you're ignorant of their realities.
And the reality is, not only is Russia a peer-level military opponent, meaning that they're as good as we are, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not being... Look, I'm a former Marine.
And I'm the kind of guy that says, you can't beat me in any kind of fight.
Okay?
If I went to war against Russia, I'm convinced my Marines would win.
But it would be a hell of a price, a hell of a fight, because they're that good.
But it doesn't matter.
No nuclear-armed power, like the United States or Russia, can lose a stand-up fight against a peer-level opponent, because that's existential.
That means that your nation goes away.
That's why we have nuclear weapons, to make sure that we don't disappear.
Mutually assured destruction, but we've deviated from that.
Now we have a new generation of people who think, no wait a minute, because Russia's weak, we can bully them, we can threaten them with nuclear conflict, and they'll back down.
I'm here to tell you right now, Russia's not weak, Russia has a nuclear arsenal that's second to none, and they have a doctrine that says that they are attacked.
This is why I don't believe in limited nuclear war, because it doesn't matter what we believe.
We use one nuclear weapon against Russia, they'll launch everything at us instantly, and there's nothing we have that can shoot them down.
Again, I just, I don't want to scare people.
You will all die.
It's that blunt.
You cannot survive a nuclear conflict waged between nuclear powers like the United States and Russia.
Once it happens, all the weapons are released, everybody dies.
Ladies and gentlemen, one mistake, one miscalculation, one, you know, Arab judgment, it's all over.
And in nuclear war, there's no such thing as a limited nuclear war.
You can't win a nuclear war.
By all over I mean you're all dead.
And that's our future if we don't find a way to get disarmament back on the table.
That's why the 2024 elections are probably one of the most important elections in the history of the United States because literally the future of the United States and the world is on the line.
We elect the wrong person, we don't get arms control, We all die.
So we got to stop being complacent.
We have to stop waiting for somebody else to do something.
Ladies and gentlemen, the onus is on you.
The burden is on you.
You have got to make the decision that you want to live.
Therefore, you have to become engaged and insist whoever is in power in 2024 has to make arms control the number one policy objective of the United States.
Because if we don't bring nuclear weapons under control...
unidentified
[explosion]
Leading a frontal assault on the lies of the New World Order is...
It's Alex Jones.
From the front lines of the Information War, it's Alex Jones.
Yeah, but I just want to mention one thing about t-shirts.
President Trump called me the other day just to tell me that he was going to endorse Get Trump, and he thought it was a great book that he hoped someday I'll vote for him.
And I told him, look, I'll give you one bit of advice.
Invest in a t-shirt company because once you have a mugshot, your mugshot will go on every t-shirt and it will sell more than anything since Frank Sinatra's mugshot.
And it will be used probably as a campaign poster.
And so that mugshot will become world famous.
And I asked him if he would send me a signed copy of it.
My, as you see in the back, my back wall, I have lots and lots of fun things posted.
And so, getting his mug shot will be interesting, too.
You know, Burr, as you know, killed Hamilton at a duel, but he wasn't prosecuted for that.
He was actually sitting vice president when that happened, but he was prosecuted years later for treason.
He tried to get a verdict of not guilty.
The jury returned a verdict of not proven using the Scottish system.
He objected to that, and the judge, who was John Marshall, the great Chief Justice of the United States, said, no, no, no, you're going to have to be satisfied with the verdict of not proven.
But that trial, and then I would say some of the McCarthy trials, some of the civil rights trials, are the greatest trials in American history.
The Rosenberg trial, there are so many.
This is going to rank among them if it ever gets to trial.
It's a strong possibility it won't get to trial.
It'll be dismissed on statute of limitations or other grounds, but You know, it might get the trial.
And if it gets the trial in Manhattan, he probably will be convicted.
And then it'll have to go up to appellate courts.
And appellate judges in New York are also elected.
And so it may have to wait to get into the federal courts and up to the Supreme Court.
But my prediction is, in the end, if the indictment is what we think it is, it will not survive.
There has been some talk, Professor, about the possibility of issuing a gag order.
I see this as misuse of bail authority, a violation of First Amendment principles.
Can you just tell people why there's constitutional limits on such a gag order, why it should not apply here, and what's the risk that the political pressure in New York leads a judge to issue that kind of gag order?
Gag orders like this have been issued in the past.
They are, in my view, unconstitutional.
We have to take seriously the notion that every American is presumed innocent unless and until they're found guilty by a jury.
Innocent people can't be denied their First Amendment rights.
By the way, it's not only Trump's First Amendment rights.
It's the First Amendment right of everybody to listen to what Trump has had to say, and there are millions of people out there who want to hear him say.
What he has to say.
And so I don't think it would be constitutional to impose a gag order or a travel restriction if he's running for president.
But, you know, judges have a lot of discretion and a lot of judges have made a lot of mistakes about bail conditions.
And so I hope that when a judge makes a decision, he'll think more about the Constitution than about what his friends will say about his decision.
In the context of Michael Cohen, for a witness who has, as you note, the extraordinarily poor track record that he does in making contradictory statements by his own admission, a self-confessed fraudster, by his own admission, a self-confessed liar, by obvious implication, a perjurer, if you're defending the president, How much would you make the reliability or lack thereof of Michael Cohen a key part of the trial strategy?
And what do you think, I don't know if you saw recently the federal civil trial that's coming up in New York where we'll get to see sort of a quick glimpse at what New York justice might look like if you're named Donald Trump.
The court has ordered an anonymous jury.
I've always been a little concerned about anonymous juries because it can create at least the impression of secret justice.
The average person doesn't get to crowdfund or crowdsource I should say information that As in the Roger Stone case, we found out one of the jurors really had not been fully forthcoming.
During the process, Blaine Maxwell's case raised some issues about that as well.
What do you think about the possibility of an anonymous jury in the criminal case concerning Donald Trump?
Anonymous juries are only anonymous during the trial.
Their names then get revealed afterward, and their names get leaked.
So I don't think an anonymous jury protects.
An anonymous jury also sends a message to the jurors, you've got something to be worried about.
And it reaffirms the notion that if people knew you were on the jury, they might take it out on you either physically or psychologically, emotionally, or in friendship ways.
I don't think an anonymous jury provides much protection.
It may provide a little bit of protection.
They also may try to get a sequestered jury.
But in this case, everybody already knows everything.
So sequestering them during the trial won't really provide the kind of fairness that is required to have a fair trial.
I just don't think it's possible to have a fair trial.
People are going to Render verdicts and judgments based on their voting patterns.
If they want to see Trump be president, if they don't want to see Trump be president, if they like his presidency in the past and they don't like it, that's not the basis for which justice is supposed to be done.
We'll be right back with Professor Dershowitz discussing this unprecedented case of the Trump indictment.
His book, Get Trumped, which unfortunately predicted and previewed much of the legal horrors we're witnessing.
unidentified
We'll discuss that and more right after the break.
We brought in a non-globalist paid actor and did a blind taste test between the mac and cheese from Storable Foods at Infowarsstore.com and one of America's leading brands.
These are the results.
Now go ahead and try the first macaroni and cheese to your right.
It literally smells like nothing.
What are your first thoughts?
Typical.
Takes me back to when the babysitter doesn't quite know how to make it like your mom makes it, so it's just not... Let's move on to the one on your left.
See, this one actually smells like cheese.
Do I have any on my 4k?
Go buy your storable food at infowarsstore.com You need to get.
welcome back to the Alex Jones show Robert Barnes here guest hosting with the one and only the inimitable Professor Alan Dershowitz, the greatest living constitutional lawyer in our time on matters of criminal law, civil law and political arena as well, has managed to cover all three in his lifetime.
A rare someone that I would like to emulate over my legal career if I get the good fortune to do so.
Professor Dershowitz, what about the timing?
In other words, the public has a right to a speedy trial, Trump has a right to a speedy trial, but it may not be in the interest of justice to have a two-speedy trial in this case.
What do you think the timing is if the case actually ultimately proceeds to a jury trial, if it gets passed, motions to dismiss, and things of that nature?
What do you think the timing will be of an actual jury trial in this case?
In terms of the issues concerning the political weaponization and selective prosecution, Does this potentially open the door to Republican prosecutors in, say, some small county somewhere in the country deciding, well, we'll indict Hillary Clinton now.
We'll indict, you know, we'll find something to indict Barack Obama on.
We'll indict Hunter Biden.
We'll indict Joe Biden.
What is the risk of that, that that door has now been opened by this prosecution?
In America, we have seen over and over again tit-for-tat politics and Anything the Democrats do, the Republicans do, and vice versa.
And I do think that we will see more political charges and we'll see the bar reduced.
It used to be the case that you understand that if a person is running for office, you must have a very high bar to prosecute.
It has to be a clear case.
This, if the indictment is what we think it is, will have violated that rule and lowered the bar.
And that lowering of the bar will apply to Republicans, to Democrats, and for everybody.
And this is a case that endangers all of our freedoms.
If you can bring a criminal case on the basis of this kind of flimsy evidence in law, that means nobody is safe.
Justice Jackson once said, excuse me, that any prosecutor can rummage through the statute I'd find something to pin on somebody, and that's not the way American law should apply, and that rule, too, has been violated by yesterday's actions.
Yeah, it very much feels like a Berea prosecution.
Show me the man and I'll find you the crime.
One thing that's always stood out to me throughout this process is you identify in your book Get Trump and have talked about being problematic from the get-go.
Usually, sometimes when you have a high-profile political person saying they're going to go after somebody, it's for something that's already happened in a clear criminal context.
Like, oh, I'm going to go prosecute Enron or I'm going to go prosecute the white collar or whatever.
Rare do you see, I'm gonna go prosecute that guy.
I'm not sure on what yet, but I'm just gonna go get that guy.
You know, the old famous Berea statement that Stalin, show me the man and I'll find you the crime.
To some degree, to what degree does this raise issues of due process?
That if we see the indictment and we see laws being applied in ways that could not have been really on fair notice of most people, as you pointed out very articulately at the beginning, non-disclosure agreements are done all the time.
Nobody puts them in their public disclosure later or their internal documents.
Oh, by the way, here's my hush money payment.
It defeats the whole purpose of a non-disclosure agreement.
Now, all of a sudden, all those people could be criminally prosecuted all across America How much is there an issue of fair notice and due process that might come up in these proceedings as well?
And can you explain for folks that the statute of limitations
isn't just like some little procedural aspects?
Sometimes we hear, you know, technicalities and people use that excuse for how criminal defendants escape as they view justice.
In fact, these are constitutional rights and liberties meant to impose fair notice is a critical component of what statute of limitations is all about.
And that the rule of lenity, as you mentioned, is about protecting against the AU defendant
being wrongfully prosecuted in a way they couldn't fairly anticipate and how we interpret
the laws.
Could you remind folks that, you know, what other people call technicalities are the core
Well, my life has been a life of trying to impose what other people think are technicalities
and I think are the essence of what makes America the greatest democracy in the world,
that we have rules of law and those rules of law have to be enforced fairly and equally
in statutes and limitations are part of them.
Look, we're seeing a challenge to statute of limitations.
The Me Too movement got many states to eliminate statutes of limitations for rape and other sexual crimes, and that has created major problems because Memories disappear, witnesses disappear, and statutes and limitations have to be taken seriously.
And I don't think any crime, other than perhaps murder, should be prosecuted beyond a certain period of time, five years, something like that.
Have you been surprised, I've been surprised to some degree that many of my friends on the left, particular but not limited to it, within the legal world have, in my view, abandoned a lot of their principles either because of political pressure or because of just like Trump derangement syndrome and the rest.
Have you been surprised at seeing that and are you, while you predicted it and get Trump and forecast this is where the world was going, are you still surprised that we're actually here, we're to this point?
In my previous book, The Price of Principle, I talked about how so many civil libertarians, people like my former colleague Lawrence Tribe, and the ACLU are prepared to give up on the Constitution in order to get Trump.
And I've had people say that to me.
We're prepared to do anything, distort any constitutional provision, ignore any rule of law, if we can get Trump.
And that's why the subtitle for my book at Trump is the threat to civil liberties due process and our constitutional rule of law.
It's not only a threat to Trump.
It's not only a threat to people who get indicted.
It's a threat to have the rule of law subordinated to the preference of politics.
And I think we're seeing more and more and more of that.
There's less respect for the Constitution, and people on the hard left, particularly in the woke movement, have said over and over again, we don't care about freedom of speech, we don't care about due process, we know the truth.
We know if you're a man who's been accused by a woman, you have to be guilty.
What do you need a trial for?
What do you need due process?
We know if you're somebody who makes statements that are sexist or racist, There's no room for that under our First Amendment.
We don't need to hear your point of view.
That's what happened in Stanford when a group of people from the National Lawyers Guild organized an attempt to try to shut down and silence a federal judge whose views they disagreed with.
National Lawyers Guild It's going to do that all over the country at 100 law schools where they have organizations.
And so we have to fight back for every one of our amendments.
Look, if I were writing the Bill of Rights, I might not put the Second Amendment in, certainly not in the ambiguous terms that is there today, but it's there.
And we have to fight to preserve it, just like we have to fight to preserve the Fifth Amendment and the First Amendment.
That's the basis of our democracy.
The Bill of Rights is a constraint on majority rule, and we have to keep that viable, and we're not doing that.
We're allowing partisan political preferences to prevail over the Constitution.
I recommend Get Trump because it's about figuring, as he articulates well, beyond Trump himself.
It's about our rule of law.
It's about America.
So we'll be right back after the break.
Thanks, Professor Dershowitz.
unidentified
As a longtime listener, I've tried nearly every one of your nutraceuticals.
Thank you.
like DNA force, super male vitality, and your vitamin C and zinc with those hips
have become staples of my everyday life.
Thank you.
But what I feel, you're welcome.
And what I feel is more important though, is your filtration systems.
The fact that we spend one third of our life in our bed, everyone should have an air filter in your bedroom at least.
You have no idea what you're missing if you don't.
And if you're not filtering your water that you drink, the water that you cook with, or even the water that you Clean your fruits and vegetables with, again, you are not taking your health into your own hands like you can.
It'll change everything for you.
And once you get back the shower filters, I propose you put together a package with all three to get everyone started with a healthier living.
